If I buy the book for $19.99, I am allowed tear the book page by page and scan it in and read it on my computer. I am allowed to dictate the book to myself so I can listen to it later. I am allowed to copy the book so I can read it in plain text on my computer.

As far as myself and my publishers are concerned we don't care whether you burn the book or wipe your ass with it!

The day that you decide to start a volume business based on my copyrighted work then my lawyers will descend on you and demonstrate some novel ways to combine MY book and YOUR ass.

Yeah I thought it was funny too. I guess it's hard to put a price on having a silver plastic Apple on a computer case.

You are implying that the only difference between the Psystar box and a MacPro is the logo, when in fact the additional money I paid for the Apple branded machine was for the better support, performance, and design.

The Apple Store sells and ships products to end user customers only. You may not purchase for resale. Apple reserves the right to refuse or cancel your order if Apple suspects you are purchasing for resale."

Say you buy Windows Vista UPGRADE, and do the hack that allows you to install a retail version of Vista from said DVD, then you are stealing. Correct? From what I gather, Mac OS X Leopard is basically an UPGRADE DVD for Macs, since they all come pre-installed with a Mac OS. Am I assuming incorrectly?

Yes you are correct, that is the biggest downfall with Psystar is the fact they are using an 'upgrade disc' and are not upgrading anything. But they could still win on the fact that Apple has a quasi monopoly (You are stuck buying Apple hardware if you want OS X, but you can buy any hardware including Apple to run Windows or Linux)

Which is why I always point out that Vista is not really more expensive than OS X when you count that most copies sold are OEM. Only retail if you built your own computer is expensive. I wonder if Psystar's computers would be so profitable if the retail version of OS X was $400? That would probably shut them up as the price difference between their computers and Macs would be less worth getting a Psystar but would still allow the hackintosh community to be legal and not worry about updates as much (though that is changing).

And even if Apple made a retail version, they don't have to worry about supporting other hardware (Just make a disclaimer, allow a return in 15 days). I think alot of hardware makers would make drivers themselves (as that is honestly who Microsoft got most of the drivers for its OS). And then make the retail version require a key, but not the Apple version which check to make sure you have an Apple computer.

I will say Hackintosh let me decide it wasn't a bad idea to buy a Macbook... so I think its a good think in the end for Apple.

The case is a slam dunk, Psystar's argument is no doubt an interesting exercise for their lawyer, but the odd's of them winning it are many thousands to one (at best) and everyone knows it.

I hope you're right but I think you're being presumptuous. I believe AAPL has really bungled this case by entering into arbitration. I read it as a legal ploy to exhaust Psystar's legal options but it has backfired on AAPL. Psystar is now rubbing the mediation process in AAPL's face. The tail is wagging the dog! Dig?

The Apple Store sells and ships products to end user customers only. You may not purchase for resale. Apple reserves the right to refuse or cancel your order if Apple suspects you are purchasing for resale."

What if they bought the OS X discs from Amazon, Best Buy or other store?

What if they bought the OS X discs from Amazon, Best Buy or other store?

That's a good question. I guess I don't know for sure, but since Amazon, and the like, are Authorized Resellers, then I would imagine you couldn't buy from them with the intent to resell either. But maybe that's not the case?

Here's a better example...

If you look at the "Mac OS X Software License Agreement" you find this:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one
computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. Subject to the restrictions set forth below, you may, however, make a one-time
permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must
include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts (excluding Apple Boot ROM code and firmware), original media, printed materials and this License; (b)
you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple
Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute, sublicense or transfer any Apple Software that
has been modified or replaced under Section 2D above. All components of the Apple Software are provided as part of a bundle and may not be separated from the bundle
and distributed as standalone applications. Apple Software provided with a particular Apple-labeled hardware product may not run on other models of Apple-labeled
hardware.

That's pretty clear to me. Pystar is guilty on all accounts.

They are installing Apple software on non-Apple-labeled computers for sure. And, they are redistributing Apple software.

Yes you are correct, that is the biggest downfall with Psystar is the fact they are using an 'upgrade disc' and are not upgrading anything.

<sigh> I'm back for more fun and flagellation.
No, the retail boxes of Mac OS X don't say anything about the software being an upgrade version. I understand your point, but that doesn't particularly matter. The crux of the situation is that Apple hasn't given anyone--let alone Psystar--a license to install Mac OS X (of which the copyright is owned by Apple) on any computer other than an Apple-branded computer. Your point of upgrade versus new install would matter if Apple had other licensing schemes in mind. Yes, if Apple would allow Mac OS X on non-Apple computers, they very well would charge more for it, but the fact is Apple doesn't allow this.

Quote:

But they could still win on the fact that Apple has a quasi monopoly (You are stuck buying Apple hardware if you want OS X, but you can buy any hardware including Apple to run Windows or Linux)

I have no idea what a quasi-monopoly is, but Apple doesn't have a monopoly any more than I have a monopoly on my house. Just as Fujitsu and Amdahl did to IBM in the 1960s and maybe 1970s, if you can't join 'em, beat 'em: Amdahl manufactured IBM-compatible mainframe hardware and sold it with a clone of the IBM OS, which allowed software developed for IBM mainframes to run on the Amdahl hardware. Psystar is free to do the same: build Apple-compatible PCs and install their own Mac OS X clone.

Just because Microsoft has a monopoly on PC operating system sales doesn't mean they have to allow others to copy Windows without a license.

i really dont like Apple(the hardware Co.). but mac OS X is decent, and i would really like to use it more. I only really want to install it because i have to support macs at work. So more power to psystar. Because i might be using mac OS X soon, but i will never pay for Apple hardware(at least at retail prices)

I hope you're right but I think you're being presumptuous. I believe AAPL has really bungled this case by entering into arbitration. I read it as a legal ploy to exhaust Psystar's legal options but it has backfired on AAPL. Psystar is now rubbing the mediation process in AAPL's face. The tail is wagging the dog! Dig?

Dude it is a requirement of American law that they go into arbitratiion.

i really dont like Apple(the hardware Co.). but mac OS X is decent, and i would really like to use it more. I only really want to install it because i have to support macs at work. So more power to psystar. Because i might be using mac OS X soon, but i will never pay for Apple hardware(at least at retail prices)

So then don't buy it or go the hackintosh route, no one is forcing you to buy anything, some of you think you should be entitled to everything, if you can't afford to buy something, you save up and go and buy it, which is what I did. If I want a Benz and I can't afford it, I either find another cheaper car or I save up but no Mercedes is evil because their cars are expensive and I can't afford it.

My 2 cents for Apple not opening up their OS to other manufacturers is hardware support. Imagine if you had to support every imaginable hardware and its associated configuration out there. OS X would get bloated and become the next Windows.

I hope you're right but I think you're being presumptuous. I believe AAPL has really bungled this case by entering into arbitration. I read it as a legal ploy to exhaust Psystar's legal options but it has backfired on AAPL. Psystar is now rubbing the mediation process in AAPL's face. The tail is wagging the dog! Dig?

The arbitration is not binding. If things do not go Apple's way, they can still go
to trial. Psystar might be the one digging (a deeper hole).

Except that Psystar is not illegally copying Mac OS X onto the computers. It is installing legal copies that it purchased from Apple.

Psytar is installing legal copies of OS X, illegally, onto computers that they did not buy from Apple. They are then using Apple's trademarks and reputation to help market these systems.

They do not have a licence to do so. They didn't even ask Apple for a licence. Apple has a right to protect their own business. They have a right to restrict the usage of their own IP.

For your sake, I hope you never start up a business that is based upon any of your own created intellectual property. Based upon your logic, you would just give away (or at least sell cheaply) any competitive advantage that you had. Good luck with that.

You can't trademark a photo of a box. Otherwise, you can guess what would happen to ALLLLLLLLLLLL these people.

You are clueless to trademark laws. Even if you tatoo Apple's trademark on your ass, you can't use a picture of your ass to sell something that Apple didn't authorize you to do. The eBay post are all selling authorize Apple products made by Apple. Thus they can use Apple's trademark to advertise it. Psystar is using Apple's trademark to sell their PC's. Which is not made by Apple. (Only a fool thinks that Psystar is using the Apple trademark to sell copies of OSX.) It's a trademark violation. Unless Psystar gets a license from Apple to do so.

If you want to plaster little stickers of the Apple logo on your own PC, that's fine. But you can't use the Apple trademark to sell that PC because it's not made by Apple. It's not only violates trademark laws but it's false advertising. Potential buyer may mistaken that it's an Apple product or that Apple somehow endorses the product.

Is this Psystar working for more leverage in their upcoming arbitration?

wait a second, when was it announced that Psystar could legally start making Mac clones again. I thought that the current standing was that they could not and the issue being decided was whether they have to recall all the ones they already, illegally sold.

basically Psystar used the Mac name to market a computer loaded with the Mac OS software without a license to install the software on the machines in violation of the End User Agreement. not to mention that they apparently set up their own update server in an attempt to not get caught by Apple when all those machines 'dialed' into Software Update which could be seen as illegal distribution of copyrighted materials

and then when Apple called them on it and told them to cut it out and recall all sold machines they counter sued saying basically that the rules were stupid and they shouldn't get in trouble for breaking them.

The Mac OS X installation DVD is purchased from Apple, similar to how most people ordered Mac OS X Leopard installation DVDs to upgrade from 10.4 Tiger.

Can you explain how it is possible to steal something that you bought, legally, from Apple?

Please, feel free to use RDF if necessary to explain your position.

the position is really very easy to understand.

You go to an Apple Store. You buy a single user box of OSX. you have the legal right to put it on one computer

You do NOT have the right to go and put it on hundreds of computers. But that is what Psystar did. And then apparently they were fetching the updates and distributing those illegally on their own servers. Both of which are blantant copyright violations. Just like buying the new Coldplay and putting it out there for thousands to download is a violation

Apple still sells a copy of OS X for every copy sold for use in a Psystar computer.

and the proof. cause that is one thing that has NOT been seen in all of this. Proof that Psystar has bought a copy of Mac OSX for every machine sold.

and actually yes they did chop it up. they modified the system to contact their computer servers for updates. if the copies of OSX were 'legal' why bother.

and even if they did buy copies and not mess with the software, the copies they bought were sold for their use, not be redistributed. so they still broke the rules and are trying to play the 'its a stupid rule' game.

Quote:

They are not using a trademark or a brand to sell a computer.

the name "Mac" is a trademark. as soon as they called it the OpenMac they violated the trademark

Quote:

They are selling a computer which allows you to install Mac OS X after purchasing it from Apple.

For your sake, I hope you never start up a business that is based upon any of your own created intellectual property. Based upon your logic, you would just give away (or at least sell cheaply) any competitive advantage that you had. Good luck with that.

well coming from slightly different industry, some people dont see business this way. Some see competition as a way of business, and sometimes an unavoidable way of business.
Apple fans do not have to worry, Apple will prevail and Psystar will die because of the $$$.

to be succeed in a competitive market one must:
Offer a Superior product
Offer excellent customer service/support
Offer excellent value.

Apple has no problem succeeding in the first two. But, "Value"? Apple could use some help there. Most apple fans can admit that(admitting to have to "save up to buy a mac"). So why cant Psystar help a little. They are buying apples product, putting it in a machine of less quality and offering it way cheaper.

I bet most Psystar buyers use there Hackintosh as a stepping stone to the real deal... and end up sooner or later buying an Apple. So Apple wins two times. but i guarantee that must Psystar buyers end up buying the real deal(apple).

it is only a monopoly if you can prove that "apple computers" are a market all by themselves. they are not. they are one item available in the 'personal computer market'. just like the iphone is not a market all to itself but part of the 'smart phone market'

Yes, you are perfectly allowed to do so. It's called Fair Use. IT'S CALLED FAIR USE.

You have absolutely no idea what on earth you are talking about when you say "No, you are not."

You also don't seem to have a clue about of "Fair Use". It applies differently to different copyrighted material.

"Fair Use" allows you to make copies of your music on to tape, CD, MP3 player or computer so that you can play your music on the different equipments that you own. Or to make a "mix" copy CD of the music you own. Plus a CD is more likely to be damaged because it's played so often. So making a back up copy for yourself is permited but frown upon by the RIAA.

Most software permits you to make a back up copy. You are permitted to keep and use the back up copy so long as you still own the original. The thinking is that software can be expensive and since you're really only paying for the rights to use the software. It's shouldn't be illegal you to have 2 physical copy of it in case one gets damaged. So long as it's only installed on the number of computers permitted by your license. That's fair.

"Fair Use" on the other hand do not allow you to make another physical copy of a DVD movie. All phsyical copy of a DVD movie is a pirated copy. Even if you own the original and it's for personal use. It's questionable that you can even have a digital copy of it on your computer so you can put it in your iPod.

"Fair Use" does not allow you make a copy of your whole book. It's questionable, but you can make copies of portions of your book to take with you when you don't want to carry the whole book or to take notes on. But you can't copy the whole book. There's no reason for you to have two complete copies of your book. The only reason you may be allowed to scan or dictate your whole book into a computer is if you have eyesight problems and need to enlarge the type in order to read it or need an audio version. (Of course some one that can see will have to do the dictating.)

"Fair Use" does not allow you to alter any of the contents of a copyrighted material and then sell it in the altered form. You may only use the altered form for your own personal use.

"Fair Use" does not allow you to use some one else's copyright material to market your own product. You need to get a license for the copyright owner.

"Fair Use" do not apply to Psystar as they are a business and using copyrighted material for commercial use not personal use.

Even if Psystar only sells the PC and instructed their buyers on how to buy OSX, get the hack and get it loaded into their PC, they are breaking the law. If you encourage some one to violate copyright laws, you are also guilty of violating copyright laws. Both Napster and Gokster were put out of business because they were encouraging people to violate copyright laws. Even though nearly none of their users were charged with copyright violations.

Somehow I think Blu-ray playback support will arrive to the MacOS through either an Apple solution or a third party solution long before monkey's fly out of any part of your body. The question isn't if, but when. There are bluray drives that can fit in all the Mac desktops and in both the MB and MBP. Ironically a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about keep saying that there are no 9mm Bluray nevermind that Panasonic released one at this years' CES and you have been able to buy one for months. Add that to the fact that Nvidia notes that the 9400M supports HDCP and the only issue that should block playback is the lack of any playback software. At some point I imagine even if Steve Jobs doesn't want it that some third party will create a licensed Blu-ray playback program for OSX and bundle it with a drive. If Apple's market share keeps increasing it is only a matter of time before somebody decides that there are enough potential customers to justify said product.

Quote:

No matter the cost right now, if Apple doesn't act aggressively to protect its IP, others will follow in Psystar's footsteps and make it even more costly for Apple in the long run.

Ultimately though if your IP violator doesn't have many assets it is like trying to squeeze blood out of turnips. Sure you can get all Psystar's assets, but what are those really worth? Most major corporations (ie. Dell, HP, Sony, etc.) aren't going to risk a lawsuit with Apple. Somehow I don't think that the commercial market for Mac clones could ever get very big.

You are basically falling for the classic RIAA strategy for dealing with piracy and we all know how that worked. Apple is better off trying to plug holes in the product line to squelch any market for a competitor. Some people on this forum are too much of an Apple acolyte to admit that there are some products that there is significant demand for that Apple isn't satisfying. Many wishes are unrealistic, but there are some that aren't unrealistic.

Quote:

All Apple has to do is shut down Psystar's "Mac" business through the legal system, while continuing to deliver good quality, good performance (even exceptional performance in the Mac Pro), and good support, all on a massive scale.

Apple really needs to focus on improving their quality because in recent years a lot of people have been underwhelmed by their hardware quality. It is one thing to pay good money to get good quality, but in recent years Apple's hardware quality has left something to be desired.

Quote:

Most Mac and PC customers aren't going to understand why a BR drive doesn't play BR movies. Psystar is going to have a few disenchanted customers with their most recent move. BR movies compete with iTMS and AppleTV, which is one reason Apple doesn't offer Blu-ray as an option. If Apple can postpone Blu-ray long enough, the Internet will kill Blu-ray. Every day that goes by brings us closer to the day when Blu-ray is irrelevant.

At least within the United States that day is certainly not going to be in this decade and probably well into the next decade as well for most people. Telecos have dragged their feet in improving bandwidth speeds. I think on the idea that Blu-ray will never catch a foothold because of the internet is real pie in the sky. Furthermore, while Apple has played a big role in the legal digital distribution of music their success in videos has been underwhelming to say the least.

As for AppleTV, I don't think Apple's exclusion of Blu-ray as an option in their computers is going to help the lagging sales of the AppleTV until Apple makes a major overhaul. The thing runs too hot, it doesn't store enough video particularly if you are storing HD quality content, and the iTunes "HD" video are about on par with standard DVD amongst other criticisms. For those with good size TV sets the "HD" video from iTunes is no competition for Blu-ray quality. I will agree that everyone is going to want to pay for Blu-ray on their Mac that is why unlike Sony trying to shove it on their computers Apple should make it optional. What's so bad about giving your customers options? I realize that you don't want to inundate your customers with trivial questions like Dell does on CTO models, but I doubt most people would be bothered by one more line in the CTO options.

[/quote]"Significantly" is the watch word. The current Mac mini is still quite good. It takes a while for hardware components to progress to where a Mac mini can be significantly updated while maintaining a decent profit margin.[/QUOTE]

The Mac Mini hasn't been updated in >14 months in case you hadn't noticed. Performance per dollar ratios can change dramatically in 14 months in the computer industry. High end components that you only wished to include last year can drop in half in 14 months. Even if Apple released an updated Mac Mini tomorrow they could sell a Mac Mini that would blow away the old Mac Mini performance wise at the same profit margin if not better than the Macbooks currently have. The processors are so old on the Mac Mini that Apple will eventually be forced to update the Mac Mini because Intel is moving on to new models. When you can buy an entire laptop with more RAM, a bigger HDD, and a better chipset for about the same price as the Mac Mini it doesn't take much imagination to wonder why Apple wouldn't be able to have an entry level model that blows away even the high end version of the current model.

RAM prices are dramatically lower than they were 14 months ago. Putting 2GB on the entry level model wouldn't be expensive at all. I have seen laptops that are cheaper than the entry level Mac Mini with 3GB of RAM. The Mac Mini should be on par spec wise with a comparably priced laptop, but even if the Mac Mini were a laptop with a 14" screen and the same specs it would be unimpressive. You are quite delusional if you think that the Mac Minis specs are still impressive at the same price point after 14 months. For perspective, except for using the slower Atom processor ASUS' EEE box is pretty comparable to the current Mac Mini. It has 802.11N and a card reader which neither model of the Mac Mini offer and despite being superior to the Mac Mini in some respects it is selling for almost half the price of the Mac Mini.

Bottom line either Apple is working on a major overhaul of the Mac Mini or the Mac Mini is probably dead. If there isn't a Mac Mini overhaul or a product that replaces the Mac Mini by January I am inclined to believe the latter.

actually it's nothing to do with copyright in this case. they are using the Mac name to sell a product so it's trademark infringement. similar but not the same

Copyright infringement and trademark infringement are somewhat similar. As I said, Psystar is using"the Apple name and "Mac OS X" to promote copyright infringment." Psystar is infringing on Apple's copyright and infringing on Apple's trademark to promote it.

Somehow I think Blu-ray playback support will arrive to the MacOS through either an Apple solution or a third party solution long before monkey's fly out of any part of your body.

We're talking about here and now and what Psystar "engineers" (hah!) are could accomplish on their own with a Mac.

Quote:

Ultimately though if your IP violator doesn't have many assets it is like trying to squeeze blood out of turnips. Sure you can get all Psystar's assets, but what are those really worth?

It's worth Apple not getting nickled and dimed to death by a bunch of independent clone makers, that's what. Do you not understand mob mentality? Doubtless Apple could care less about getting oodles of dollars in remuneration out of Psystar, as long as Psystar feels Apple's wrath, is stopped from infringing on Apple's IP, and as long as the world recognizes Psystar has been hurt if not decimated.

Quote:

You are basically falling for the classic RIAA strategy for dealing with piracy and we all know how that worked. Apple is better off trying to plug holes in the product line to squelch any market for a competitor. Some people on this forum are too much of an Apple acolyte to admit that there are some products that there is significant demand for that Apple isn't satisfying. Many wishes are unrealistic, but there are some that aren't unrealistic.

Yeah, whatever.

Quote:

Apple really needs to focus on improving their quality because in recent years a lot of people have been underwhelmed by their hardware quality.

What you need to consider is the fraction. A small fraction of a large number is big, but still acceptable and could be better than the competition.

Quote:

The Mac Mini hasn't been updated in >14 months in case you hadn't noticed. Performance per dollar ratios can change dramatically in 14 months in the computer industry.

Oh, I've noticed. And performance really hasn't increased much for the type of hardware that goes in a Mac mini. Then add significant time to re-engineer the system, by an engineering team that had a higher priority of redesigning the iMac, MacBook, and MacBook Pro.

Quote:

Bottom line either Apple is working on a major overhaul of the Mac Mini or the Mac Mini is probably dead. If there isn't a Mac Mini overhaul or a product that replaces the Mac Mini by January I am inclined to believe the latter.

Well lets make it simple, its easy to know why there is people supporting Psycrap and such, its because they are cheap.

Now don't start flaming me, think about it, do you think with the amount of functions and features Leopard is offered is cheap? Where do Apple makes it money to pay its hardworking software engineers? How do they pay their electricity bills? How do they pay for the R&D, you think an OS retail price can cover all of this?

Then you are all wrong mate, look what happen to Windows Vista, need to release a few versions just to make it cheap enough for users. And how do the OS performs? Crap, but now getting better.

Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.

People are allowed to buy Leopard, buy any PC, and install Leopard on that PC. What you do with your stuff at home is your business.

Resellers are not allowed to build a PC with a legal or illegal copy of Leopard and market it as such. Because that would be riding on Apple's success, and you're not allowed a free ride if Apple does not approve of it. Microsoft allows it, but Apple does not.

I do not think if someone buys a Psystar and the company tanks that they'll be left out in the cold, or that they'll own a brick for a computer. Psystar, a generic computer assembler, will be using generic components which are available all over eBay. If, and when, Apple wins this case and you find out that Snow Leopard has locked out your Psystar then you can always install other OSes or just keep your Leopard.

Something that you buy, for money, from Apple belongs to you. If someone buys a Mac OS X installation DVD from Apple for $129, Apple can't go to that person's house and take back the installation DVD.

First, when you buy a Mac OS X DVD you buy the media (the physical DVD) and you get a license to use the OS (program) not own it. Second, installing a software (OS or any other software) is considered copying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright). Third, Psystar already admitted that they violated Apple copyrights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfanning

And that is different from Apple how?

Last month, my wifes MB top cover cracked. Took it to Apple store and got it replaced within 2 hours. Psystar don't have retail stores and therefore you have to mail your computer or your hard drive for simple problems such as Mac OS reinstallation.